Spatial distribution of rare species in lotic habitats
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Species rarity is a common phenomenon in the biological world. Although rare species have always interested biologists, the meaning of ‘rare’ has not always been clear with the definition of rarity often arbitrary. In the current study, we investigate rarity in stream ecosystems using black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae). We defined rare species a priori as those species found ≤ 10% of stream sites examined ( n = 111 streams for ‘summer collections’; n = 88 collection for ‘spring’ collections). Hence, we are exploring only one axis of rarity, restricted range. We first consider the distribution of each rare species separately to determine if the mean (euclidian) distance among streams (habitats) for each rare species differs from a random model. We next took a collective approach by pooling all rare species to determine the influence of stream conditions, niche breadth, and distance among habitats on rarity. Even within this biologically uniform group of flies, dispersal, range limits, and stream conditions all might play a role in rarity, and the importance of each of these factors appear to vary among species. Rather than looking for broad causes of rarity, future studies might be more fruitful if they looked at species‐specific causes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it